May The Best Car Win ?

[IheartmyNx]

I was in the Sedan service for a while. We also had a DD service and I valet parked a few times... So I'd drive a brand new flappy paddle Murc one minute, and a POS Chevy SUV the next...


I can tell you, if you want to be as far as possible from the driving experience, get a GM...

I was amazed at GM brakes... Soft, spongy, dead, you never knew how serious they were at stopping... It was like getting the dead fish when you shake a mans hand...

The steering was the same... You turn the wheel, something you can do with your pinky finger, but you didn't feel anything but the yaw of the craft... NO FEEDBACK...

Those are two big ass reasons I'll never own a GM...


I fawking HATE "Luxury" shit, and all the powder puff shit that goes with it...

[FishHunt]

Originally Posted by hillbillypolack

Also didn't realize that discussing a five-year-old stereotype was relevant. Go out and drive a GM product. I think you might learn something.

Five year old sterotype? Sorry I have not been keeping up with the GM ads for the last five years. I did not know they had been making such dumbass ads that long.

GM has not been a viable company for several years, FACT. They should have acted years ago to save the company.

There is one bright spot for the American car makers. Ford just recorded a 3rd quarter profit of nearly one billion dollars. This was due mainly to the cash-for-clunkers program. Its a tiny bright spot but its better than the black hole of GM that keeps taking our tax dollars.

May the best cars win...AGAIN.

<>< Fish

[stephano]

May the best capitalistic car company win..........fail. Who gives a shit anymore. In 10 years we'll all be driving some flower omitting bucket sized plastic earth dome on wheels, saving the environment no less. All the advertisements are simply to distract your attention from how freaking stupid we are.
Am I wrong??? Try checking out some car ads from the 1970's. They had us snowballed back then too.

[High_Side]

Originally Posted by hillbillypolack

Also didn't realize that discussing a five-year-old stereotype was relevant. Go out and drive a GM product. I think you might learn something.

How many times should we be expected to "learn something"? I bought in to the bullshit in the '90s that GM was indeed building better cars and stepped up to the plate. What I got was the worst piece of garbage that I have ever owned. So why should I look at GM again? I too believe that the best car has already won.

[kawalaser]

Originally Posted by SinFrenas

fair enough, but do you read jalopnik.com?

they talked some shit about the cadillac cts-v a while back, and bob lutz (a honcho at gm) fired a letter off to them saying, basically, bullshit. any time, any track, any car.

they took him up on it and lined up a string of test cars from the same class, hoping to prove that the cts-v was too little and too late next to the european brands...and one by one the manufacturers of those cars asked that their product not be involved in the race - funny.

anyway the race was last thursday and the results are here:

http://jalopnik.com/5393563/jalopnik...rified-results

regardless of how the caddy did, i think it's sweet that gm was willing to back up their product. it's also sweet that the fancypants euro brands pwned themselves pre-race by withdrawing their cars.

america: fuck yeah.

awesome

John Heinricy in CTS-V: 2:46:560
Aaron Link in CTS-V: 2:48:902
Brian Redman in CTS-V: 2:49:596
Michael Cooper in BMW M3: 2:50:424
Jack Baruth in CTS-V: 2:51:153
Lawrence Ulrich in CTS-V: 2:53:157
Bob Lutz in CTS-V: 2:56:321
Michael Mainwald in BMW M5: 3:05:398
Wes Siler in Mitsubishi Evo: 3:08:126
Chris Fairman in CTS-V: 3:14:292
Archan Basu in Jaguar XF: 3:15:670
Tom Loder in Audi RS4: 3:15:702

[hillbillypolack]

Originally Posted by High_Side

How many times should we be expected to "learn something"? I bought in to the bullshit in the '90s that GM was indeed building better cars and stepped up to the plate. What I got was the worst piece of garbage that I have ever owned. So why should I look at GM again? I too believe that the best car has already won.

What other cars did you drive before buying your 90s GM car? All I'm suggesting is that you could go out and blindly get a Toyota with a sticking acellerator pedal, bum transmissions or perforating frames. Or, go out and see what the General has on offer. Compare brands and see what's "good", not just what Consumer Reports lists as a solid black dot.

Not saying either decision is fool-proof (there are plenty who would chime in and agree), just that things have changed a LOT since you took delivery of your 90s car.

[hillbillypolack]

Originally Posted by FishHunt

Five year old sterotype? Sorry I have not been keeping up with the GM ads for the last five years. I did not know they had been making such dumbass ads that long.

I thought this was "shiny things", not "advertising corner"... I was talking more about the stereotypes of the cars, not the ads.

True that GM has not been viable for a number of years. Time they got real direction and got their heads out of their asses.

[Gernick]

Originally Posted by hillbillypolack

Also didn't realize that discussing a five-year-old stereotype was relevant. Go out and drive a GM product. I think you might learn something.

I have. The trucks are decent. High end cars are decent. Low end cars blow goat dick. Also, FWD is for those that can't drive or don't like driving. Hates it I do.

Their dealers suck ass too.

[California]

It's really simple, you know! I've been in the retail automobile business all of my adult life. I've worked with, or for, Toyota, Alfa Romeo, Ford, Isuzu, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Honda, Cadillac, BMW, Porsche. Everytime one company or another has financial problems it generally can be laid on only a couple of base/underlying causes.

1. Bean counters in charge
2. Mother company becomes too diversified
3. Arrogance, i.e., What's good for GM is good for America.

All through the various ups and downs, recessions and booms, there have always been a hand full of car companies that continue to prosper and make money. What do they have in common? This is the simple part;

You are in the car business, build a quality car, the customers are smart enough to figure it out in the long run.

Look at where Honda, BMW, and this time even Ford are. They're not losing money, they're very slowly, but surely gaining client base, market share, and a good reputation. It's that simple, build a good car, you'll prosper!

As a way of demonstrating the opposite, look what happened to MBZ after they mated with Chrysler, their quality suffered, sales plummeted, and their reputation took a hit. As soon as they divested and got back to their core values, the cars improved, market share improved, and the reputation appears to have been rescued.

You can't be all things to all people, choose your battles and then do everything in your power to do it right!

oh, by the way, this is just my opinion, and it's worth every penny you paid for it!

[Burque Scott]

What GM is going to need to do is make quality cars for a number of years to get their reputation back. They can talk all they want, but until there are lots of their new cars on the road and they show that they're reliable and are as quality as they're saying they are, they're going to be battling their old reputation.

Ya know, if fucking Hyundai can resurrect their image, GM should be able to as well... Hyundai even put thier money where their mouth is and offered a 100k warranty, and I think other companies have done that too (Shit, it may have been GM? I dunno - I have 4-Runner with 150k miles and the original brakes! Car pmts can suck it...) I'd be all for buying a GM as my next vehicle, but they're going to have to realize that reliablility breeds loyalty, and it may take a few years to build that reputation. They need to build the best fucking car they possibly can and the rest will take care of itself. It can even cost a little bit more money, as long as that money buys quality.

BTW, that Caddie CTS-V is a kick ass car. Everything i've ever read on it is that it's a bad mofo. Focus that energy on the mid-size car range, and they'll kick ass.

[TrashCan]

Be very aware of the GM electric power steering.

They have been a problem since 2004(Malibu).
I have a 2006, same problem, will have to replace the column,
about $875+ labor.

[adam_c_eckhardt]

I'm about to give GM a chance.

I could really use a new truck. I've had two Toyotas that were flawless. I've had an older Suburban that was also a pretty good rig.

I drove my father in law's new GMC Sierra not long ago. He more or less pushed me into the driver's door and said to drive him to breakfast 50 miles away. I have to admit I was pretty impressed with the ride quality. Handling was several notches better than previous GM trucks I had driven. Although the interior is also better, it still has a few aspects to it that make it feel a little cheap- especially for a vehicle with a $37,000 price tag.

I'm going to go and drive a new Tundra on Saturday and try to figure out which route I'm going to take.

It doesn't really matter which one we're talking about- they're all overpriced in my opinion.

I'm not looking at a Ford or Dodge. I've had plenty of experience with both in different places of work, and I'm just not up for it.

[koncha]

Originally Posted by FishHunt

This was due mainly to the cash-for-clunkers program.

<>< Fish

No it isn't. Forget what the hot brunette said on CNBC.

Ford saw a $2.9 billion increase in North America operations from 3Q2008 to 3Q2009, YOY. They saw an increase of 24,500 in US sales from same period YOY.

I doubt each of those 24,500 sales generated $118,000 profits for Ford.

The main causes of Ford profitability were a decrease in OPEX, higher residuals on leases held by Ford Credit and favorable exchange rates.


http://www.autonews.com/article/2009...911029995/1200
http://www.autoblog.com/category/by-the-numbers/